THE 


Ij  -J 


^iiT- 


I  STATE  OF  THE  COUNTRY,  1 


If 
I 

PI 


■J!L 


HV 


EEV.  J.  H.  THORNWELL,  D.  D., 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 


aOEUMBEv,    S.    &. 


MEW  ORLEANS: 

r.       Kn  AT  Till",  "tuuf.  witness  ANn  pentixkl"  office,  94  cvmi'  st. 


\Si)]^ 


m 


^"i^^,^-.;^;^ 


George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 

COLONEL  FLOWERS 


THE  STATE  OF  THE  COUNTRY, 

BY 

Rev.    J.  H.  THORN^VELL,  D.    D. 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  COLUMBIA,  S.  C. 


Declaration  of  the  Immediate  Cau.-^es  which  Induce  and  Justify  the  Secess0n  of 
South  Carolina  from  the  Federal  ii^nibn;  and  the  Odinance  of  Secession.  Printed 
by  order  of  the  Convention.  '  Cliarleston:  Evans  &  Cogswell,  Printers  to  the 
Convention;  p.  13.     1860. 

The  Address  of  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  Assembled  in  Convention,  to  the 
Peoj^le  of  the  Slaveholding  Statets  of  the  United  States.  Printed  by  order  of  the 
Convention.  Charleston  :  Evans  &  Cogs.well,  Printers  to  the  Convention ;  p. 
16.     1860. 

Report  on  the  Address  of  a  pohion  of  the  Members  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
Georgia.  Printed  by  order  of  the  Convention.  Charleston:  Evans  &  Cogswell, 
Printers  to  the  Convention;  p.  (^.     1860. 


It  is  now  universally  known  tinit,  on 
the  twentieth  day  of  last  December,  tin? 
people  of  South  Carolina,  in  Convention 
assembled,  solemnly  annulled  the  ordin- 
ance by  which  they  becarfce  members  of 
the  Federal  Union,  entitled  the /United 
States  of  America,  and  ros<ui|cd  to  them- 
selves the  exercise"  of  a+1  •  the  powers 
which  they  had  delegated  %o  tlio  Federal 
Congress.  South  Carolina  has  nowfbe- 
come  a  separate  and  independent  St|te. 
She  takes  her  place  as  a#  equal  among 
the  other  nations  of  the  ^rth.«  This  is 
certainly  one  of  the  most  grave  and  im- 
portant events  of  modern^  llmcS.  It  in- 
volves the  destiny  of  a  toi^tiuent,  and 
through  that  continent,  the  fortunes  of 
tiic  liuman  race.  As  it  is»ji  matter  of  the 
utmost  moment  that  the  rest  of  the  world, 
and  especially  that  the\i)eople  of  the 
United  States,  should  understand  the 
causes  which  have  brought  about  this 
astounding  result,  we  proi)Ose,»in  a  short 
article,  and  in  a  candid  and* dispassionate 
spirit,  to  explain  them,  and  t(/  m«ke  an 
appeal,  both  to  the  slaveholding  and  non- 
shiveholding  States,  touching  their  duty 
in  the  new  and  extraordinary  aspect 
which    affairs   have   assumed. 


That  there  was  a  cause,  and  an  ade- 
quate cause,  might  be  pvesuuKid  from  the 
character  of  the  Convention  wiiich  passed 
the  Ordinance  of  Secession,  and  the  per- 
fect unanimity  with  which  it  was  dojie. 
That  Convention  was  not  a  collection  of 
demagogues  and  politicians.  It  was  not 
a  conclave  of  defeated  place-hunters,  who 
sought  to  avenge  the'r  disappointment  by 
the  ruin  of  their  country.  It  was  a  body 
of  sober,  grave,  and  venerable  men,  se- 
lected from  every  pursuit  in  life,  and  dis- 
tinguished, most  of  them,  in  their  respec- 
tive spheres,  by  every  quality  which  can 
command  confidence  and  respect.  It  em- 
braced the  wisdom,  moderation,  and  in- 
tcgrit}'  of  the  bench,  the  learning  and 
prudence  of  the  bar,  and  the  eloquence 
and  piety  of  the  pulpit.  It  contained  re- 
tired planters,  scholars,  and  gentlemen, 
who  had  stood  aloof  from  the  turmoil  and 
ambition  of  public  life,  and  were  devot- 
ing an  elegant  leisure — oHuni  cum  digni- 
tale — to  the  culture  of  their  minds,  and  to 
quiet  and  unobtrusive  schemes  of  Chris- 
tian philantiiropy.  There  were  men  in 
that  Convention  who  were  utterly  inca- 
pable of  low  and  selfish  schemes;  who,  in 
the   calm   serenity   of   their  judgments, 


would  liave  listened  to  no  voiag  but  what 
they  believed  to  be  the  voicc^f  reason, 


were  as  unmoved  by  the  waves  of  popu- 
lar passion  and  excitement,  as  the  ever- 
lasting granite  by  the  billows  that  roll 
against  it.     There  were  men  there  who 

i<Mi  bui 
c^f  r 
and  would  have  bowed  to  no  authority 
but  what  they  believed  to  be  the  author- 
ity of  God.  There  were  men  there  who 
would  not  have  been  controlled  by  "  un- 
certain opinion,"  nor  betrayed  into  "  sud- 
den counsels;"  men  who  could  act  from 
nothing,  in  the  noble  language  of  Milti)n, 
"  but  from  mature  wisdom,  deliberate  vir- 
tue, and  dear  afi'ection  to  the  public  good." 
Tlu'i^Convention,  in  the  character  of  its 
meters,  deserves  every  syllable  of  the 
glowing  panegyric  which  Wilton  has  pro- 
nounced upon  the  immortal  Parliament  of 
England,  which  taught  the  nations  of  the 
earth  that  resistance  to  tyrants  is  obedi- 
ence to  God.  Were  it  not  invidious,  we 
might  single  out  names,  which,  wherever 
they  are  known,  are  regarded  as  S3'n- 
onymous  with  purity,  probitj^,  magna- 
nimity, and  honor.  It  was  a  noble  body, 
and  all  their  proceedings  were  in  har- 
mony with  their  liigh  character.  In  the 
midst  of  intense  agitation  and  excite- 
ment, they  were  calm,  cool,  collected,  and 
self-possessed.  Thoy  delil-rcrated  without 
passion,  and  concluded  without  rashness. 
They  sat  Avith  closed  doors,  that  the  tu- 
mult of  the  populace  might  not  invade 
the  sobriety  of  their  minds.  If  a  stran- 
ger could  have  passed  from  the^  stirriiig 
scenes  with  which  the  streets  of  Charles- 
ton were  alive,  into  the  calm  and  quiet 
sanctuary  of  this  venerable  council,  he 
would  have  been  impressed  with  the  awe 
and  veneration  which  subdued  the  rude 
Gaul,  when  he  first  ))eheld  in  senatorial 
dignity  the  Conscript  Fathers  of  Home. 
That,  in  such  a  body,  there  was  noLa  sin- 
gle voice  against  the  Ordinance  of  1^'Cces- 
sion,  that  there  was  not  onl}'  no  dissdnt, 
but  that  the  assent  was  cordial  and  thor- 
ough-going, is  a  strong  presumption  that 
the  measure  was  justified  by  the  clearest 
and  sternest  necessities  of  justice  and  of 
right.  That  such  an  assembly  should 
have  inaugurated  and  completed  a  radical 
revolution  in  all  the  external  relations  of 
State,  in  the  face  of  acknowledged  dan- 
gers, and  at  the  risk  of  enormous  sacri- 
fices, and  should  have  done  it  gravely, 
soberly,     dispassionately,     deliberately, 


and  yet  have  done  it  without  cause,  tran- 
lecends  all  the  measures  of  jirobability, 
Wnalever-<frse  may  be  said  of  it,  it  cer- 
tainly Jiuist,  be  admitted  that  this  solemn 
act  of'Soiitl^  Carolina  was  well  consid- 
ered. I 

In  her  esfimate  of  the  magnitude  of 
the  dangei^she  has  been  seconded  bj' 
OVGj-3;._5)ther  slaveholding  State.  While 
we  are->writing,  the  telegraphic  wires  an- 
nounce" what  the  previous  elections  had 
jtrepiwed  us  to  expect — that  Florida,  Ala- 
bama^.^nd  ^lississippi  have  followed  her 
example.  They  also  have  become  sepa- 
rate and  indei)endent  States.  Three  other 
State^lfiave  taken  tlie  incipient  steps  for 
ihe  consummation  giof  the  same  result. 
AU)i>tHc  rest  of  the  slaveholding  States 
arc  hiuiging  by  a  single  thread  to  the 
Union-l^the  slender  thread  of  hope — that 
guarantees  may  be  devised  which  shall 
yet  s^ure  to  them  their  rights.  But 
even  they  proclaim,  that,  without  sucli 
guaran1^x\s,  their  wnmgs  are  intolerable, 
and  tht'y  will  not  longer  endure  them. 
Can  any  man  believe  that  the  secession  of 
four  ^tji-ereign  States,  under  the  most 
solcnin  eircumstances,  the  determination 
gof  others  to  follow  as  soon  as  the  consti- 
tuted ajLithorities  can  be  called  together, 
and  the   universal   sentiment  of  all  that 


the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
bcen\;rtuall/  repealed,  and  that  every 
linaf  ^^tate  has   just  ground  for 
c;Jfi  any  man  believe  that  this 


sla'^i^-ii 
secessi  _ 

is  a  fat^itic^il  condition  of  the  public 
mJAid  (it '^.iio  South,  })roduced  by  brawling 
p^ticians  and  disappointed  demagogues, 
ai*  not  the  caln),  deliberate,  profound  ut- 
terance of  5^pople  Avho  feel,  in  their  in- 
most soifls,  f^t  the}'-  have  been  deeply 
aftd  fiagj-antLj^  wronged?  Tiic  presump- 
tion 'clearly  Lstthat  there  is  something  in 
the  attitudf^  r>f.i^he  Tiovermnent  Avliich 
portendt*  daiif^^f-  and  demands  resistance. 
There  nkust  I/?*  a  cause  for  this  intense 
and  porjadin*  sense  of  injustice  and  of 
injury,  i./      r 

It  has  been  suggested,  by  those  who 
know  as  little  of  the  people  of  the  South 
as  they  tlo  of  the  Constitution  of  their 
country ,*4hat  all  this  ferment  is  nothing 
but  tlTe  r'gsult  of  a  mercenary  spirit  on 
the  part  of  the  cotton-growing  States,  fed 
by  Utopian  dreams  of  aggrandizement 
and  wealth,  to  be  realized  under  the  aus- 
pices of  free  trade,  in  a  separate  Confcdc- 


racy  of  tkeir  own.  It  has  been  gravely 
insinuated  that  they  are  willing  to  sell 
their  faith  for  gold — that  they  have  only 
made  a  pretext  of  recent  events  to  accom- 
plish a  foregone  scheme  of  deliberate 
treachery  and  fraud.  That  there  is  not 
the  slightest  ground  in  anything  these 
States  have  ever  said  or  done  for  this  ex- 
traordinary slander,  it  is,  of  course,  su- 
perfluous to  add.  The  South  has,  indeed, 
complained  of  the  unequal  administration 
of  the  Government.  Her  best  and  purest 
statesmen  have  openly  avowed  the  opin- 
ion, that,  in  consequence  of  the  partial 
legislation  of  Congress,  she  has  borne 
burdens,  and  experienced  inconveniences, 
which  have  retarded  her  own  prospcrit}^, 
while  they  have  largely  contributed  to 
develope  the  resources  of  the  North.  But 
grievances  of  this  kijid,  unless  greatly 
exaggerated,  never  would  have  led  to  tlic 
dissolution  of  tlie  Union.  They  would 
have  been  resisted  within  it,  or  patiently 
borne  until  they  could  be  lawfully  re- 
dressed. So  far  from  contending  for  an 
arbitrary  riglit  to  dissolve  the  Union,  or 
the  right  to  dissolve  it  on  merely  techni- 
cal grounds,  the  South  sets  so  high  a 
value  on  good  faith,  that  she  would  never 
have  dissolved  it,  for  slight  and  tempora- 
ry wrongs,  even  though  they  might  in- 
volve such  a  violation,  on  the  part  of  her 
confederates,  of  the  terms  of  the  compact, 
as  released  her  from  any  furtlicr  obliga- 
tion of  honor.  It  is,  therefore,  preposter- 
ous to  say,  that  any  dreams,  however 
dazzling,  of  ambition  and  avarice,  could 
have  induced  her  to  disregard  her  solemn 
engagements  to  her  sister  States,  while 
they  were  faithfully  fulfilling  the  condi- 
tions of  the  contract.  Vic  know  the  i)eo- 
ple  of  the  South;  and  we  can  confidently 
a|lirni,  that  if  they  had  been  assured  that 
all  these  golden  visions  could  have  been 
completely  realized  by  setting  up  for 
themselves,  as  long  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  continued  to  be  sin- 
cerely observed,  they  would  liavc  spurned 
the  temptation  to  purchase  national  great- 
ness by  perfidy.  They  would  have  pre- 
ferred poverty,  with  lumor,  to  the  gain  of 
the  whole  world  by  the  loss  of  their  integ- 
rity. 

When  it  was  perceived  tliat  tlie  tend- 
ency of  events  was  inevitably  driving  the 
South  to  disunion,  a  condition  from  which 
she  at  first  recoiled  with  horror,  then  she 


began  to  cast  about  for  considerations  to 
reconcile  her  to  her  destiny.  Then,  for 
the  first  time,  was  it  maintained,  that,  in- 
stead of  being  a  loser,  she  might  be  a 
gainer  by  the  measure  which  the  course 
of  the  Government  was  forcing  upon  her. 
It  was  alleged  that  good  would  spring 
from  evil;  that  the  prospect  of  indepen- 
dence was  brighter  and  more  cheering 
than  her  present  condition — that  she  had 
much  to  anticipate,  and  little  to  dread, 
from  the  contemplated  change.  But  these 
considerations  were  not  invented  to  justify 
secession — they  were  only  adduced  as 
motives  to  reconcile  the  mind  to  its  ne- 
cessity. Apart  from  that  necessity,  they 
would  have  had  as  little  weight  in  de- 
termining public  opinion,  as  the  small 
dust  of  the  balance.  We  do  not  believe, 
when  the  present  controversy  began,  that 
the  advocates  of  what  is  called  disunion 
per  se,  men  who  preferred  a  Southern 
Confederacy  upon  the  grounds  of  its  in- 
trinsic superiority  to  the  Constitutional 
Union  of  the  United  States,  could  have 
mustered  a  corporal's  guard.  The  people 
of  the  South  were  loyal  to  the  country, 
and  if  the  country  had  been  true  to  them, 
they  would  have  been  as  ready  to-day  to 
defend  its  honor  with  their  fortunes  and 
their  blood,  as  when  they  raised  its 
triumphant  flag  upon  the  walls  of  Mexico. 
It  has  also  been  asserted,  as  a  groimd 
of  dissatisfaction  with  the  present  Gov- 
ernment, and  of  desire  to  organize  a  sep- 
arate Government  of  their  own,  that  the 
cotton-growing  States  are  intent  upon  re- 
opening, as  a  means  of  fulfilling  their 
magnificent  visions  of  wealth,  tlie  Afri- 
can slave-trade.  The  agitation  of  this 
subject  at  the  South  has  been  grievously 
misunderstood.  One  extreme  generates 
another.  The  violence  of  the  Northern 
abolitionists  gave  rise  to  a  small  party 
among  ourselves,  who  were  determined 
not  to  be  outdone  in  extravagance.  They 
wished  to  show  that  they  could  give  a 
Rowland  for  an  Oliver.  Had  abolition- 
ists never  denounced  the  domestic  trade 
as  plunder  and  robber}',  not  a  whisper 
would  ever  have  been  breathed  about  dis- 
turbing the  peace  of  Africa.  The  men 
who  were  loudest  in  their  denunciations 
of  the  Government  had,  with  very  few  ex- 
ceptions, no  more  desire  to  have  the  trade 
reopened  than  the  rest  of  their  country- 
men ;  but  they  delighted  in  teasing  their 


enemies.  They  took  special  satisfaction 
in  providing  hard  nuts  for  abolitionists  t<:» 
crack.  Tliore  -were  others,  not  at  all  in  fa- 
vor of  the  trade,  who  looked  npon  the  law 
as  unconstitutional  which  declared  it  to 
be  piracy.  Hut  the  great  mass  of  the 
Southern  people  were  content  with  tlie 
law  as  it  stood.  They  were  and  are  op- 
posed to  the  trade — not  because  the  traf- 
fic in  slaves  is  immoral — that  not  a  man 
amoncT  us  believes — but  because  the  traf- 
fic with  Africa  is  vol  a  traflic  in  slaves. — 
It  is  a  system  of  kidnapping  and  man- 
stealing,  which  is  as  abhorrent  to  the 
South  as  it  is  to  the  North  ;  and  we  ven- 
ture ctnifidentlj-  to  predict,  that  should  a 
Southern  Ct)])fcderac3'  be  formed,  the  Af- 
rican slave-trade  is  much  more  likely  to 
be  reopened  l)y  the  old  Government  than 
the  new.  The  conscience  of  the  North 
will  be  less  tender  when  it  has  no  South- 
ern sins  to  bewail,  and  idle  ships  will  natu- 
rally look  to  the  (Joveniment  to  help  them 
in  finding  em])loyment. 

The  real  cause  of  the  intense  excite- 
ment of  the  Scnitb,  is  not  vain  dreams  of 
natiitnal  glory  in  a  st^parate  confederacy, 
nor  the  love  of  the  iilthy  lucre  of  tlic  Af- 
rican slave-trade  ;  it  is  the  profound  con- 
viction that  the  Constitution,  in  its  rela- 
tions to  slavery,  has  been  virtually  repeal- 
ed ;  that  the  Government  has  assumed  a 
new  and  dangerous  attitude  upon  this 
subject  ;  that  we  liave,  in  short,  new 
terms  of  union  sulnnittcd  to  our  accep- 
tance or  rejection.  Here  lies  the  evil. — 
The  election  of  Lincoln,  when  properly 
interpreted,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
a  proposition  to  tlie  South  to  consent  to  a 
(rovernment,  fundamentally  diifcrent  up- 
on tlie  question  of  slavery,  from  tliat 
which  our  fathers  established.  If  this 
point  can  be  made  out,  secession  liecomes 
not  only  a  right,  but  a  bounded  duty. — 
Morally,  it  is  only  the  abrogation  of  the 
forms  of  a  contract,  when  its  essential 
conditions  have  been  abolished.  Polit- 
ically, it  is  a  measure  indispensable  to 
the  safety,  if  not  to  the  very  existence,  of 
the  South.  It  is  needless  to  say  that,  in 
this  issue  the  personal  character  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  not  at  all  involved.  There  are 
no  objections  to  him  as  a  man,  or  as  a 
citizen  of  the  North.  He  is  probably  en- 
titled, in  the  private  relations  of  life,  to  all 
the  commendations  which  liis  friends  have 
bestowed  upon  him.     We,  at  least,  would 


be  the  last  to  detract  from  his  personal 
worth.  The  issue  has  respect,  not  to  the 
man,  but  to  the  principles  upon  which  he 
is  pledged  to  administer  the  (lovernment, 
and  which,  we  arc  significantly  inftn-mcd, 
are  to  be  impressed  upon  it  in  all  time  to 
come.  His  election  seals  the  triumph  of 
those  principles,  and  that  triumph  seals 
tlie  subversion  of  the  Constitution,  in  re- 
lation to  a  matter  of  paramount  interest 
to  the  South. 

This  we  shall  proceed  to  show,  by  show- 
ing, first,  the  Constitutional  attitude  of 
the  CJovennnent  towards  slavery,  and 
then  the  attitude  which,  after  the  inaii- 
guration  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  it  is  to  assume 
and  maintain  for  ever: 

I.  What,  now,  is  its  Constitutional  at- 
titude? We  affirm  it  to  be  one  of  ,\iisoiXTE 
iNniKFEREXCE  OR  NEUTR.\LrrY,  with  rcspcct 
to  all  questions  connected  with  the  moral 
and  political  aspects  of  the  subject.  In 
the  eye  of  the  Constitution,  slavcholding 
and  non-slavcholding  stand  upon  a  foot- 
ing of  perfect  equality.  The  slavchold- 
ing State  and  the  slavcholding  citizen 
are  the  same  to  it  as  the  non-.slaveholding. 
It  protects  both;  it  espouses  the  peculiari- 
ties of  neither.  It  does  not  alow  the 
North  to  say  to  the  South,  Your  institu- 
tions are  inferior  to  ours,  ajid  should  be 
changed;  neither  does  it  allow  the  Soutli 
to  say  to  the  North,  You  must  accommo- 
date yourselves  to  us.  It  says  to  both, 
Enjo}'  your  own  opinions  upon  your  own 
soil,  so  that  you  do  not  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  each  other.  To  me  there  is  no 
dilference  betwixt  you.  Formed  by  par- 
ties whose  divisive  principle  was  this 
very  subject  of  slavery,  it  stands  to  rea- 
son, that  the  Constitution,  Avithout  self- 
condemnation  on  the  part  of  one  or  the 
other,  coxild  not  have  been  made  the  pa- 
tron of  either  From  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  its  position  must  be  one  of  com- 
plete impartiality.  This  is  what  the 
Soutli  means  by  equality  in  the  Union, 
that  the  General  Govorninent  shall  make 
no  dillerenco  betwixt  its  institutions  and 
those  of  the  North  ;  that  slavcholding 
shall  be  as  good  to  it  as  non-slaveholding. 
In  other  words,  the  Government  is  the 
organ  'of  neither  party,  but  Ihe  common 
agent  of  both  ;  and,  as  their  common 
agent,  has  no  right  to  pronounce  an  opin- 
ion as  to  the  merits  of  their  respective 
l)eculiarities.     This,    we  contend,   is   the 


attitude  fixed  by  the  Constitution.  The 
Government  is  neither  pro  nor  anti  slave- 
ry. It  is  simpl}^  neutral.  Had  it  assum- 
ed any  other  attitude  upon  this  subject, 
it  never  would  have  been  accepted  by  the 
slaveliolding'  States.  When  Mr.  Pinck- 
ney  could  rise  up  in  the  Convention  and 
declar^,  that  "  if  slaver}^  be  wrong,  it  is 
justified  b}'  the  example  of  all  the  world;" 
when  he  could  boldly  appeal  to  the  unani- 
mous testimou}^  of  ancient  and  modern 
times  —  to  Greece  and  Rome,  to  France, 
Holland,  and  Eng-land,  in  vindication  of 
its  rig-htcousness,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed 
that  he  never  would  have  joined  in  the 
constriTction  of  a  Government  wliich  was 
authorized  to  pronounce  and  treat  it  as 
an  evil  1  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that 
the  slaveholding  States,  unless  they  seri- 
ously aimed  at  the  ultimate  extinction  of 
slavery,  would  have  entered  into  an  alli- 
ance which  was  confessedly  to  be  turned 
against  them.  That  they  did  not  aim  at 
the  extinction  of  slcivery,  is  clear  from 
the  pertinacity  with  which  some  of  them 
chmg  to  the  continuance  of  the  African 
slave-trade,  until  foreign  supplies  should 
be  no  longer  demanded.  AVhen  Georgia 
and  South  Carolina  made  it  a  sine  quanon 
for  entering  the  Union,  that  this  traffic 
sliould  be  kept  open  for  a  season,  to  say 
that  these  States  meditated  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  is  grossly  paradoxical.  It  is 
remarkable,  too,  that  the  time  fixed  for 
the  prohibition  of  this  traffic,  was  a  time 
within  which  the  Representatives  of 
those  States  were  pei'suaded  that  the 
States  themselves,  if  the  question  were 
left  to  them,  would  prohibit  it.  These 
States  conceded  to  the  Govennnent  the 
right  to  do,  as  their  agent,  oidy  wliat 
tliey  tliemselvcs  would  do,  as  sovereign 
communities,  under  the  same  circumstan- 
ces. No  presumption,  thcfore,  of  an  at- 
titude, on  ,the  part  of  the  Constitution, 
liostilc  to  slavery,  can  be  deduced  from 
tlie  clause  touching  the  African  slave- 
trade.  On  the  contrary,  the  presumption 
is,  that,  as  the  trade  was  kept  open  for  a 
while — kept  open,  in  fact,  as  long  as  the 
African  supply  was  needed — the  slave- 
holding  States  never  meant  to  abolish  the 
institution,  and  never  could  have  con- 
sented to  set  the  face  of  the  Government 
against  it.  No  doubt,  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic  were,  many  of  them,  not  all, 
opposed   to   slavery.       But  they  had  t^ 


frame  a  Government  which  should  repre- 
sent, not  their  personal  and  private  opin- 
ions, but  the  interests  of  sovereign  States. 
They  had  to  adjust  it  to  the  institutions 
of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  as  well  as 
those  of  New  England.  And  they  had 
the  grace  given  them  to  impress  upon  it  the 
only  attitude  which  could  conciliate  and 
harmonize  all  parties  —  the  attitude  of 
perfect  indificreuce. 

This,  at  the  same  time,  is  the  attitude 
of  justice.  We  of  the  South  have  the 
same  right  to  our  opinions  as  the  people 
of  the  North.  They  appear  as  true  to  us  as 
theirs  appear  to  them.  We  are  as  honest  and 
sincere  in  forming  and  maiataining  them. 
We  unite  to  form  a  goTcrnmcnt.  Upon 
what  principle  shall  it  be  formed?  Is  it 
to  be  asked  of  us  to  renounce  doctrines 
which  we  believe  have  come  down  to  us 
from  the  earliest  ages,  and  have  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  oracles  of  God  ?  Must  wc 
give  up  what  we  conscientiously  believe 
to  be  the  truth?  The  thing  is  absurd. 
The  Government,  in  justice,  can  only  say 
to  both  parties:  I  will  protect  you  both, 
I  will  be  the  advocate  of  neither. 

In  order  to  exempt  slavery  from  the 
operation  of  this  plain  principle  of  justice, 
it  has  been  contended  that  the  right  of 
property  in  slaves  is  the  creature  of  posi- 
tive statute,  and,  consequently,  of  force 
only  Avithin  the  limits  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  law;  that  it  is  a  right  not  recog- 
nized by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and,  therefore,  not  to  be  protected 
where  Congress  is  the  local  legislature. 
These  two  propositions  contain  every 
thing  that  lias  any  show  of  reason  for  the 
extraordinary  revolution  which  the  recent 
election  has  consummated  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States. 

They  are  both  gratuitous  : 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  slavery  has 
never,  in  any  country,  so  far  as  we  know, 
arisen  under  the  operation  of  statute  law. 
It  is  not  a  municipal  institution — it  is  not 
the  arbitrary  creature  of  the  State,  it  has 
not  si^'ung  from  the  mere  force  of  legis- 
lation. Law  defines,  modifies  and  regu- 
lates it,  as  it  does  ever}^  other  species  of 
property,  but  law  never  created  it.  The 
law  found  it  in  existence,  and  beiug  in 
existence,  the  law  subjects  it  to  fixed 
rules.  On  the  contrary,  what  is  local  and 
municipal,  is  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The 
States    that   are    now  non-slaveholding, 


have  been  made  so  by  positive  statute. 
.Slavery  exists,  of  course,  in  every  nation 
ill  wliich  it  is  not  proliibitcd.  It  arose,  in 
the  i)rog'ress  of  human  events,  from  the 
operatitin  of  moral  causes  ;  it  has  bc.n 
grounded  by  philosophers  in  moral  max- 
ims, it  has  always  been  held  to  be  moral 
by  the  vast  majority  of  the  race.  No 
a^^e  has  been  without  it.  From  the  first 
(lawn  <jf  authentic  history,  until  the  pres- 
ent period,  it  has  come  down  to  us 
throngh  all  the  course  of  ages.  We  find 
it  aiming  nomadic  tribes,  barbarian  hordes, 
and  civilized  States.  Wherever  commu- 
nities have  been  organized,  and  any  rights 
of  property  have  been  recognized  at  all, 
tiiere  slavery  is  seen.  If,  therefore,  there 
be  any  property  which  can  be  said  to  be 
founded  in  the  common  consent  of  the 
liuman  race,  it  is  the  property  in  slaves. 
If  there  be  any  property  that  can  be 
called  natural,  in  the  sense  that  it  spon- 
taneously springs  up  in  the  history  of  the 
species,  it  is  the  property  in  slaves.  If 
there  be  any  property  which  is  founded 
in  principles  of  universal  operation,  it  is 
the  property  in  slaves.  To  say  of  an  in- 
stitution, whose  history  is  thus  the  history 
of  man,  which  has  always  and  every 
where  existed,  that  it  is  a  local  and  nnini- 
cipal  relation,  is  of  "  all  absurdities  the 
inotliest,  the  merest  word  that  ever  fooled 
the  car  IVtun  out  the  schoolman's  jargon." 
Mankind  may  have  been  wrong — that  is 
not  the  question.  The  point  is,  whether 
the  laio  nnide  slavery — whether  it  is  the 
police  regulation  of  limited  localities,  or 
whether  it  is  a  property  founded  in  natu- 
ral causes,  and  causes  of  universal  oper- 
ation. Wc  say  nothing  as  to  the  moral 
character  of  the  causes.  We  insist  only 
upon  the  fact  that  slavery  is  rooted  in  a 
common  law,  wider  and  more  pervading 
than  the    common  law  of  England — the 

rXlVF.RSAI.    CL'.STOM    OF    MANKI.VD. 

If  therefore,  slavery  is  not  municii)al, 
but  natural,  if  it  is  abolition  which  is 
munici))al  and  local,  then,  upon  the 
avowed  doctrines  (jf  our  opponents,  two 
things  follow  :  1st.  That  slavey  goes  of 
right,  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  into 
every  territory  from  which  it  is  not  ex- 
cluded by  positive  statute  ;  and  2d. 
That  Congress  is  couipetent  to  forbid  the 
Northern  States  from  impressing  their 
local  peculiarity  of  non-slavcholding  upou 
the   common  soil   of  the    Lljiion.     If  the 


Republican  argument  is  good  for  any 
thing,  it  goes  the  whole  length  of  ex- 
cluding for  ever  any  additional  non-slave- 
holding  States  from  the  Union.  What 
would  they  think,  if  the  South  had  taken 
any  sucli  extravagant  ground  as  this  ? 
What  would  they  have  done,  if  the  South 
had  taken  advantage  of  a  numerical  ma- 
jority, to  legislate  them  and  their  institu- 
tions for  ever  out  of  the  common  territory'? 
Would  they  have  auhmilkd?  AVould 
they  have  glorified  the  Union,  and  yielded 
to  the  triumph  of  slavery?  We  know 
that  they  would  not.  They  would  have 
scorned  the  crotchet  about  municipal  and 
local  laws  which  divested  them  of  their 
dearest  rights.  Let  them  give  the  same 
measure  to  others  which  they  exp(>ct  from 
others.  It  is  a  noble  maxim,  connnended 
by  high  authority — do  as  you  would  be 
done  by. 

The  South  has  neither  asked  for,  nor 
docs  she  desire,  any  exclusive  benefits. 
All  she  demands  is,  that  as  South,  as 
slavcholding,  she  shall  be  put  upon  tlie 
same  footing  with  the  North,  as  non- 
slaveliolding — that  the  Government  shall 
not  undertake  to  sa^'^,  one  kind  (.)f  States 
is  better  than  the  other — that  it  shall 
have  no  preference  as  to  the  cliaracter,  in 
this  resjiect,  of  any  future  States  to  be 
added  to  the  Union.  Non-slaveholding 
may  be  sui)erior  to  slavcholding,  but  it  is 
not  the  place  of.  the  Government  to  say 
so  ;  much  less  to  assume  the  right  of 
saying  so  ;ipon  a  principle  which,  properly 
applied,  re(iuires  it  to  say  the  very  re- 
verse. 

There  is  another  sense  in  which  munici- 
pal is  opposed  to  international,  and  in 
this  sense,  slaver}!"  is  said  to  be  municipal, 
because  there  is  no  obligation,  by  the  law 
of  nations,  on  the  part  of  States  in  which 
slavery  is  prohibited,  to  respect  within 
the  limits  of  tlieir  owii  territory  the  rights 
of  the  foreign  slaveholder.  This  is  the 
doctrine  laid  down  by  Judge  Story.  No 
nation  is  bound  to  accord  to  a  stranger  a 
right  of  property  which  it  refuses  to  its 
own  subjects.  AVe  can  not,  therefore,  de  - 
mand  from  the  Governments  of  France  or 
England,  or  any  other  foreign  power, 
whose  j)olicy  and  interests  are  opposed 
to  slavery,  the  restoration  of  ourfugitives 
from  bondage.  We  are  Avilling  to  con- 
cede, for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
principle  in  (jucstion  is  an  admitted  prin- 


ciplo  of  international  law,  though  we  are 
quite  persuaded  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  current  of  Continental  authorities, 
and  is  intensely  English.  We  doubt 
whether,  even  in  England,  it  can  be  traced 
beyond  the  famous  decision  of  Lord  Mans- 
field, in  the  case  of  Somersett.  But  let 
us  admit  the  principle.  What  then  ? 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
expressly  provided  that  this  principle 
shall  not  apply  within  tlie  limits  of  Fed- 
eral jurisdiction.  With  reference  to  tliis 
country,  it  has  abrogated  the  law  ;  every 
State  is  bound  to  respect  the  right  of  the 
Southern  master  to  his  slave.  The  Con- 
stitution covers  the  whole  territory  of  the 
Union,  and  thruughout  that  territory  has 
taken  slavery,  under  the  protection  of 
law.  However  foreign  nations  may  treat 
our  fugitive  slaves,  the  States  of  this 
Confederacy  are  bound  to  treat  them  as 
property,  and  to  give  them  back  to  their 
lawful  owners.  How  idle,  therefore,  to 
plead  a  })rinciplc  of  international  laAv, 
wliich,  in  reference  to  the  relations  of  the 
States  of  this  Union,  is  formally  abolished! 
Slavery  is  clearly  a  part  of  the  municipal 
law  of  the  United  States  ;  and  the  whole 
argument  from  the  local  cliaractcr  of  the 
institution,  falls  to  the  ground.  Slave- 
holding  and  non-slaveholding  are  both 
equally  sectional,  and  both  equally  na- 
tional. 

(2.)  As  to  tlie  allegation  that  the  Con- 
stitution no  where  recognizes  the  right  of 
pr(jperty  in  slaves,  that  is  ecjually  un- 
founded. We  shall  say  nothing  here  of 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  though 
that,  one  would  think,  is  entitled  to  some 
consideration.  We  shall  appeal  to  the 
Constitution  itself,  and  if  there  is  force  in 
logic,  we  shall  be  able  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  right  is  not  only  recognized,  but 
recognized  with  a  philosophical  accurac}- 
and  precision  that  seize  only  on  the  es- 
smitial,  and  omit  the  variable  and  acci- 
dental. The  subject,  in  the  language  of 
the  Constitution,  is  transferred  from  the 
technicalities  of  law  to  the  higher  sphere 
of  abstract  and  speculative  morality. 
Morally  considered,  to  what  class  does 
the  slave  belong  ?  To  the  class  of  per- 
sons held  to  service.  The  two  ideas  that 
he  is  a  person,  and  as  a  person,  held  to 
service,  .constitute  the  generic  conception 
of  slavery.  How  is  his  obligation  to 
service   fundamentally   dilicrenced    from 


that  of  other  laborers  ?  By  this,  as  one 
essential  circumstance,  that  it  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  formalities  of  contract. 
Add  the  circumstance  that  it  is  for  life, 
and  yon  have  a  complete  conception  of 
the  thing.  You  have  the  very  definition, 
almost  in  his  own  words,  Avhich  a  cele- 
brated English  philosopher  gives  of  slave- 
ry :  "  I  define  slavery,"  saj-s  Dr.  Paley, 
"to  be  an  obligation  to  labor  for  the 
benefit  of  the  master,  without  the  contract 
or  consent  of  the  servant." 

Xow,  is  such  an  obligation  recognized 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ? 
Are  there  persons  spoken  of  in  it,  who  are 
held  to  service  b}^  a  claim  so  sacred  that 
the  Government  allows  them,  however 
anxious  they  may  be  to  do  so,  to  dissolve 
it  neither  by  stratagem  nor  force  ?  If  they 
run  away,  they  must  be  remanded  to  those 
who  are  entitled  to  their  labor,  even  if 
they  escape  to  a  territory  whose  local  laws 
would  otherwise  protect  them.  If  they 
appeal  to  force,  the  whole  power  of  the 
Union  may  be  brought  to  caish  them. 
Can  any  man  say.  that  the  Co  istitution 
does  not  here  recognize  a  right  to  the 
labor  and  service  of  men,  of  persons 
which  springs  from  no  stipulations  of 
their  own,  is  entirely  independent  of  their 
own  consent,  and  which  can  never  be  an- 
nulled by  any  cfibrts,  Avhether  clandestine 
or  open,  on  their  part  ?  27a'.s  is  slavenj — 
it  is  the  very  essence  and  core  of  the  in- 
stitution. That  upon  which  the  right  of 
property  terminates  in  the  slave,  is  his 
service  or  labor.  It  is  not  his  soul,  nor 
his  person,  not  his  moral  and  intellectual 
nature — it  is  his  labor.  This  is  the  thing 
which  is  bought  and  sold  in  the  market, 
and  it  is  in  consequence  of  the  right  to 
regulate,  control  and  direct  this,  that  the 
person  comes  under  an  obligation  to  obey. 
The  ideas  of  a  right  on  one  side,  and  duty 
on  the  other,  show  that  the  slave,  in  this 
relation,  is  truly  a  person  as  his  master. 
The  Constitution,  therefore,  does  recog- 
nize and  protect  slavery,  in  every  moral 
and  ethical  feature  of  it.  The  thing 
which,  imder  that  name,  has  commanded 
the  approbation  of  mankind,  is  the  very 
thing,  among  others  analogous  to  it,  in- 
cluded in  the  third  clause  of  the  second 
section  of  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Con- 
stitution. We  see  no  way  of  getting 
round  this  argument.  It  is  idle  to  say 
that  slaves  are  not  referred  to — it  is  equal- 


ly  idle  to  say  that  the  right  to  their  labor 
is  not  respected  and  guarded.  Let  this 
right  be  acknowledged  in  the  territories, 
and  we  are  not  disposed  to  wring  changes 
upon  wi^rds.  Let  the  Government  per- 
mit the  South  to  carry  her  persons  held  to 
service,  witlmut  tlicir  cousjent,  into  the 
territories,  and  let  tlie  right  to  tlieir  labor 
be  protected,  and  there  would  be  no  quar- 
rel about  slavery.  It  is  unworthy  of 
statesmen,  in  a  matter  of  this  sort,  to 
quibble  about  legal  technicalities.  That 
tlic  law  of  slaveholding  States  classes 
slaves  among  chattels,  and  speaks  of  them 
as  marketable  commodities,  does  not  im- 
ply that,  morally  and  etliically,  they  are 
not  persons,  nor  that  the  property  is  in 
them,  rather  than  in  their  toil.  Tliese 
same  laws  treat  them  in  other  respects  as 
persons,  and  s])eak  of  their'  service  as 
obedience  or  duty.  Tiie  meaning  of  chat- 
tel is  relative,  and  is  to  be  restricted  to 
the  relation  wliich  it  implies. 

We  are  happy  to  find  that  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  fully  con- 
firmed thd  interpretation  which  we  liave 
given  to  this  clause  of.  the  Constitution. 
lu  the  case  of  Prigg  t>'.  the  Commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania,  it  was  asserted  by  eve- 
ry Judge  upon  the  Bench,  that  the  design 
of  the  provision  was  "  to  secure  to  the 
citizens  of  the  slaveholding  States  the 
complete  right  and  title  of  ownership  in 
their  slaves,  as  propeity,  in  every  State 
in  the  Union  into  which  they  might  escape 
from  the  State  where  they  were  held  in 
servitude."  These  are  the  very  words  of 
Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  delivering  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Court.  He  went  on  to  add  : 
"The  full  recognition  of  this  right  and 
title  was  indispensable  to  the  security  oi' 
this  species  of  property  in  all  the  slave- 
holding  States  ;  and,  indeed,  was  so  vital 
to  tiie  preservation  of  the  domestic  inter-, 
csts  and  institutions  tliat  it  cannot  be 
doubted  tiiat  it  C(jnstituted  a  fundamental 
article,  without  the  adoption  of  wliich  the 
Union  could  not  have  been  formed." 
Again  :  "  We  have  said  that  the  clause 
contains  a  positive  and  unqualified  recog- 
nition of  the  right  of  the  owner  in  the 
slave."  Chief  Justice  Tanej'  held  :  that, 
"  by  the  national  com})act,  this  right  of 
property  is  recognized  as  an  existing  right 
in  every  State  of  the  Union."  Judge 
Thompson  said  :  the  Constitution  "af- 
firms, in    tlie    most  unequivocal  manner, 


the  right  of  the  master  to  the  service  of 
his  slave,  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  under  which  he  is  so  held."  Judge 
AVayne  affirmed  that  all  the  Judges  con- 
curred "  in  tlie  declaration  that  the  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  was  a  comi)ro- 
mise  between  the  slaveholding  and  the 
non-slaveholding  States,  to  secure  to  the 
former  fugitive  slaves  as  property."  "The 
paramount  authority  of  this  clause  iu  the 
Constitution,"'  says  Judge  Daniel,  "  to 
guarantee  to  the  owner  the  right  of  pro- 
perty in  his  slave,  and  the  absolute  nullity 
of  any  State  power,  directly  or  indirectly, 
openly  or  covertly,  aimed  to  impair  that 
right,  or  to  obstruct  its  enjoyment,  I  ad- 
mit, nay,  insist  upon,  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent." 

If  now,  the  Constitution  reci>gnizes 
slaves  as  property,  that  is,  as  persons  to 
whose  labor  and  service  the  master  has  a 
right,  then,  iqjon  what  principle  shall 
Congress  undertake  to  abolish  this  right 
upon  a  territ(ny,  of  which  it  is  the  local 
Legislature  ?  It  will  not  permit  the  slave 
to  cancel  it,  because  the  service  is  due. 
Upon  Avhat  ground  can  itself  interpose  be- 
tween a  man  and  his  dues  ?  Congress  is 
as  much  the  ageut  of  the  slaveholding  as 
it  is  of  tlie  non-slaveholding  States  ;  and, 
as  equally  bound  to  protect  both,  and  to 
hold  the  scales  of  justice  even  between 
them,  it  must  guard  the  property  of  the 
one  with  the  same  care  with  which  it 
guards  the  property  of  the  other. 

We  have  now  refuted  the  postulates  up- 
on which  the  recent  revolution  in  the 
Government  is  attempted  to  be  justified. 
We  have  shown  that  slavery  is  not  the 
creature  of  local  and  municipal  law,  and 
tliat  the  Constitution  distinctly  recognizes 
the  right  of  the  master  to  the  labor  or 
service  of  the  slave  ;  that  is,  the  right  of 
property  in  slaves.  There  is  no  conceiva- 
ble pretext,  then,  for  saying  that  the 
Government  should  resist  the  circulation 
of  this  kind  of  property,  more  than  any 
other.  That  question  it  must  leave  to  the 
providence  of  God,  and  to  the  natural  and 
moral  laws  by  which  its  solution  is  con- 
ditioned. All  that  the  Govennneut  can 
do,  is  to  give  fair  play  to  both  parties,  the 
slaveholding  and  non-slavelu)]ding  States  ; 
protect  the  rights  of  both  on  their  com- 
mon soil,  and  as  soon  as  a  sovereign  State 
emerges,  to  which  the  soil  is  henceforward 
to  belong,  remit  tlu;  matter  to  its  absolute 


9 


discretion.  This  is  justice — this  is  the 
impartiality  which  becomes  the  agent  of 
a  great  people,  divided  by  two  such  great 
interests. 

That  the  rights  of  the  South,  as  slave- 
holding — for  it  is  in  that  relation  only 
that  she  is  politically  a  different  section 
from  the  North — and  the  rights  of  the 
North,  as  non-slaveholding,  are  absolutely 
equal,  is  so  plain  a  proposition,  that  one 
wonders  at  the  pertinacity  with  which  it 
has  been  denied.  Here  let  us  expose  a 
sophism  whose  only  force  consists  in  a 
play  upon  words.  It  is  alleged  that  the 
equality  of  tlie  sections  is  not  disturbed 
by  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the 
territories,  because  the  Southern  man 
may  take  with  him  all  that  the  Northern 
man  can  take.  The  plain  English  of 
which  is  this  :  if  the  Soutliern  man  will 
consent  to  become  as  a  Northern  man, 
and  renounce  what  distinguishes  him  as 
a  /Southern  man,  he  may  go  into  the  terri- 
tories. But  if  he  insists  upon  remaining 
a  Southern  man,  he  must  stay  at  home. 
The  geography  is  only  an  accident  in  this 
matter.  The  Southern  man,  politically, 
is  the  slaveholder  ;  the  Northern  man, 
politically,  is  the  non-slaveholder.  The 
rights  of  the  South  arc  the  rights  of  the 
South  as  slaveholdiiig  ;  the  rights  of  the 
North  are  the  rights  of  the  North  as  non- 
slaveholding.  This  is  what  makes  the 
real  difference  betwixt  the  two  sections. 
To  exclude  slaveholding  is,  therefore,  to 
exclude  the  South.  By  the  free-soil  doc- 
trine, therefore,  she,  as  South,  is  utterly 
debarred  from  every  foot  of  the  soil, 
which  belongs,  of  right,  as  mxich  to  her 
as  to  her  Northern  confederates.  The 
Constitution  is  made  to  treat  her  institu- 
tions as  if  they  were  a  scandal  and  re- 
proach. It  becomes  the  patron  of  the 
North,  and  an  enemy,  instead  of  a  pro- 
tector, to  her. 

That  this  is  the  attitude  which  the  Gov- 
ernment is  henceforward  to  assume,  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  show : 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that  we  do  not  charge 
the  great  body  of  the  Northern  people, 
who  have  accomplished  the  recent  revolu- 
tion, with  being  abolitionists,  in  the  strict 
and  technical  sense.  We  are  willing  to 
concede  that  they  have  no  design,  for  the 
present,  to  interfere  directly  with  slavery 
in  the  slaveholding  States.    We    shall 


give  them  credit  for  an  honest  purpose, 
under  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration,  to 
execute,  as  far  as  the  hostility  of  the 
States  will  let  them,  the  provisions  of  the 
fugitive  slave  law.  All  this  may  be  ad- 
mitted, but  it  does  not  affect  the  real 
issue,  nor  mitigate  the  real  danger.  We 
know  that  there  are  various  types  of 
opinion  at  the  North  with  reference  to  the 
moral  aspects  of  slavery,  and  we  have 
never  apprehended  that,  under  the  Con- 
stitution as  it  stands,  there  was  any  like- 
lihood of  an  attempt  to  interfere,  by 
legislation,  with  our  property  on  our  own 
soil. 

(2.)  But,  in  the  second  place,  it  must 
likewise  be  conceded  that  the  general, 
almost  the  universal,  attitude  of  the  North- 
ern mind  is  one  of  hostility  to  slavery. 
Those  who  are  not  prepared  to  condemn 
it  as  a  sin,  nor  to  meddle  with  it  where  it 
is  legally  maintained,  are  yet  opposed  to 
it,  as  a  natural  and  political  evil,  which 
every  good  man  should  desire  to  see  ex- 
tinguished. Thoy  all  regard  it  as  a 
calamity,  an  affliction,  a  misfortune.  They 
regard  it  as  an  element  of  weakness,  and 
as  a  draw-back  upon  the  prosperity  and 
glory  of  the  country.  They  pity  the 
South,  as  caught  in  the  folds  of  a  serpent, 
which  is  gradually  squeezing  out  her  life. 
And,  even  when  they  defend  us  from  the 
reproach  of  sin  in  sustaining  the  relation, 
they  make  so  many  distinctions  between 
the  abstract  notion  of  slavery  and  the 
sj'^stcm  of  our  own  laws,  that  their  de- 
fense would  hardly  avail  to  save  us,  if 
there  were  any  power  competent  to  hang 
and  quarter  us.  We  are  sure  that  we  do 
not  misrepresent  the  general  tone  of 
Northern  sentiment.  It  is  one  of  hostility 
to  slavery — it  is  one  which,  while  it  might 
not  be  willing  to  break  faith,  under  the 
present  administration,  with  respect  to 
the  express  injunctions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, is  utterly  and  absolutely  opposed  to 
any  further  extension  of  the  system. 

(3.)  In  the  third  place,  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  we  have  no  com- 
plaint to  make  of  the  opinions  of  the 
North,  considered  simply  as  their  opinions. 
They  have  a  right,  so  far  as  human 
authority  is  concerned,  to  think  as  they 
please.  The  South  has  never  asked  them 
to  approve  of  slavery,  or  to  change  their 
own  institutions  and  to  introduce  it  among 
themselves.    The  South  has  been  willing 


10 


to  accord  to  them  the  most  perfect  and 
unrestricted  right  of  private  judgment. 

(4.)  But,  in  the  fourth  place,  what  we 
do  complain  of,  and  what  we  have  a  right 
to  complain  of,  is  that  they  should  not  be 
content  with  thinking  their  own  thoughts 
themselves,  but  should  undertake  tu  make 
the  Government  think  them  lifcrewise.  We 
of  the  South  have,  also,  cert;i:;i  thoughts 
concerning  sla%'ery,  and  w(?  can-pot  un- 
derstand upon  what  principle  tli'etbink- 
ing  of  the  South  is  totally  excluded,  and 
the  thinking  of  the  North  made  supreme. 
The  Government  is  as  much  ours  as  theirs, 
and  we  can  not  see  why,  in  a  matter  that 
vitally  concerns  ourselves,  we  shall  be 
allowed  to  do  no  effective  thinking  at  all. 
This  is  the  grievance.  The  Government 
is  made  to  take  the  type  of  Northern 
sentiment — it  is  animated,  in  its  relations 
to  slavery,  by  the  Northern  mind,  and  the 
South,  henceforward,  is  no  longer  of  the 
Government,  but  only  under  the  Govern- 
ment. Tiie  extension  of  slavery,  in 
obedience  to  Northern  prejudice,  is  to  be 
for  ever  arrested.  Congress  is  to  treat  it 
as  an  evil,  an  element  of  political  weak- 
ness, and  to  restrain  its  influence  within 
the  limits  which  now  circumscribe  it. 
All  this  because  the  North  thinks  so  ; 
while  tlie  South,  an  equal  party  to  the 
Goveruineut,  has  quite  other  tliouglits. 
And  when  we  indignantly  conqjlaiu  of 
this  absolute  su|)i)ression  of  all  right  to 
think  in  and  through  our  own  Govern- 
ment, upon  a  subject  liiat  involv(»s  our 
homes  and  our  firesi(J(;s,  we  are  coolly  re- 
minded, that,  as  long  as  Congress  does 
not  usurp  the  rights  of  our  own  Legisla- 
tures, and  abolish  slavery  on  our  own 
soil,  nor  harbor  our  fugitives  when  they 
attempt  to  escape  from  us,  we  have 
reason  to  be  grateful  for  the  indulgence 
accorded  to  us.  The  right  to  breathe  is 
as  much  as  we  should  venture  to  claim. 
You   may    exist,    says    free-soilism,    as 


States,  and  manage  yoiir  slaves  at  home — 
we  will  not  abrogate  your  sovereignty. 
Your  runaways  we  do  not  want,  and  we 
may  occasionally  send  them  back  to  you. 
But*  if  you  think  you  have  a  right  to  be 
heard  at  Washington  upon  this  great 
subject,  it  is  time  that  your  presumption 
should  b^  rebuked.  .The  North  is  the 
thinki'-sr  power — the  soul  of  the  Govern- 
raen+  i'Tlie  life  of  the  Government  is 
Northern — not  Southern  ;  the  type  to  be 
impr<;ssed  upon  all  future  States  is  North- 
ern— not  Southern.  The  North  becomes 
the  United  States,  and  the  South  a  sub- 
ject province. 

Now,  we  say  that  this  is  a  state  of 
things  not  to  be  borne.  A  free  people 
can  never  consent  to  their  own  degrada- 
tion. We  say  boldly,  that  the  Govern- 
ment has  no  more  right  to  adopt  North- 
ern thoughts  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
than  those  of  the  South.  It  has  no  more 
right  to  presume  that  they  are  true.  It 
has  no  right  to  arbitrate  between  them. 
It  must  treat  thejn  both  with  eipial  re- 
spect, and  give  them  an  equal  chance. 
Upon  no  other  footing  can  the  South, 
with  honor,  remain  in  the  Union.  It  is 
not  to  be  endured  for  a  moment,  that 
fifteen  sovereign  States,  embodying,,  in 
proportion  to  their  population,  as  much 
intelligence,  virtue,  public  spirit  and 
patriotism,  as  any  other  people  upon  the 
globe,  should  be  quietly  reduced  to  zero, 
in  a  Government  which  they  framed  for 
their  own  protection  1  We  put  the  ques- 
tion again  to  the  North  :  If  the  tables 
were  turned,  and  it  was  your  thoughts, 
your  life,  your  institutions,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment was  henceforward  to  discoun- 
tenance ;  if  non-slaveholding  was  here- 
after to  be  prohibited  in  every  territory, 
and  the  whole  policy  of  the  Government 
shaped  by  the  principle  that  slavery  is  a 
blessing,  would  you  endure  it  ?  Would 
not  your  blood  boil,  and  would  you  not 


11 


call  upon  your  hungry  millions  to  come 
to  the  rescue  ?  And  yet,  this  is  precisely 
what  you  have  done  to  us>  and  think  we 
ought  not  to  resist.  You  have  made  us 
ciphers,  and  are  utterly  amazed  that  we 
should  claim  to  be  any  thing. 

But,  apart  from  the  degradation  which 
it  inflicts  upon  the  South;  it  m  be  asked, 
what  real  injurj^  will  result  1;  .Jlflttizis: 
the  Government  in  an  attitude  of 
to  slavery? 

The  answer  is,  in  the  first  place,  iT^^W: 
Mnll  certainly  lead  to  the  extinction  of 
the  system.  You  may  destroy  the  oak  as 
effectually  by  girdling  it  as  by  cutting  it 
down.  The  North  are  well  assured  that 
if  they  can  circumscribe  the  area  of 
slavery,  if  they  can  surround  it  with  a 
circle  of  non-slaveholding  States,  and 
prevent  it  from  expanding,  nothing  more 
is  required  to  secure  its  ultimate  abolition. 
"  Like  the  sCorpion  girt  by  fire,"  it  will 
plunge  its  fangs  into  its  own  body,  and 
perish.  If,  therefore,  the  South  is  not 
prepared  to  see  her  institutions  sur- 
rounded by  enemies,  and  wither  and  de- 
caj'  und(>r  these  hostile  influences,  if  she 
means  to  cherish  and  protect  them,  it  is 
her  bounden  duty  to  resist  the  revolution 
which  threatens  them  with  ruin.  The 
triumph  of  the  principles  wliich  Mr.  Lin- 
coln is  pleged  to  carry  out,  is  the  death- 
knell  of  slavery. 

hi  the  next  place,  the  state  of  the 
Northern  mind  which  has  produced  this 
revoluticm  can  not  be  expected  to  remain 
content  with  its  present  victory.  It  will 
hasten  to  other  triumphs.  The  same 
spirit  which  has  prevaricated  with  the 
express  provisions  of  the  Constitution, 
and  resorted  to  expedients  to  evade  the 
most  sacred  obligations,  will  not  hesitate 
for  a  nioment  to  change  the  Constitution 
when  it  finds  itself  in  possession  of  the 
power.  It  will  only  be  consistency  to 
harmonize  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
Government  with  its  chosen  policy,  the 


real  workings  of  its  life.  The  same 
hostility  to  slavery  which  a  numerical 
maj'  '^v  has  impressed  upon  the  Federal 
Lpg  ^,  it  will  not  scruple  to  impress 

upon  the  %deral  Constitution.  If  the 
South  could  3  induced  to  submit  to  Lin 
coin,  the  tirn^ve  confidently  predict,  will 
come  whei^^P  grounds  of  controversy 
will  be  r^j^-ed  in  relation  to  fugitive 
slaves,  by  expunging  the  provision  under 
'  '\y  are  claimed.  The  principle  is 
^^1  enthroned  in  power,  whose 
iEicvi<:«,b'ie*  tendency  is  to  secure  this  re- 
res.ult.     Let  us  crush  the  serpent  in  the 

From  these  considerations,  it  is  obvious 
that  nothing  more  nor  less  is  at  stake  in 
this  controversy  than  the  very  life  of  the 
South.  The  real  question  is,  whether  she 
shall  be  politically  annihilated.  We  are 
not  struggling  for  fleeting  and  temporary 
interests.  We  are  struggling  for  our 
very  being.  And  none  know  better  than 
the  Republican  party  itself,  that  if  we 
submit  to  their  new  type  of  Government, 
our  fate  as  slaveholding  is  for  ever  sealed. 
They  have  already  exulted  in  the  prospect 
of  this  glorious  consummation.  They 
boast  that  they  have  laid  a  mine  which 
must  ultimately  explode  in  our  utter  ruin. 
They  are  singing  songs  of  victory  in  ad- 
vance, and  are  confidently  anticipating 
the  auspicious  hour  when  they  shall  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  return  to  the  field 
and  bury  the  dead. 

The  sum  of  what  we  have  said  is  brief- 
ly this  :  We  have  shown  that  the  Con- 
stitutional attitude  of  the  Government  to- 
wards slaveiy  is  one  of  absolute  neutral- 
ity or  indifference  in  relation  to  the  moral 
and  political  aspects  of  the  subject.  We 
have  shown,  in  the  next  place,  that  it  is 
hereafter  to  take  an  attitude  of  hostility ; 
that  it  is  to  represent  the  opinions  and  feel- 
ings exclusively  of  the  North  ;  that  it  is 
to  become  .he  Government  of  one  section 


12 


over  another  ;  and  that  the  South,  as 
South,  is  to  sustain  no  other  relation  to  it 
but  the  duty  of  obedience. 

This  is  a  thorough  and  radical  revolu- 
tion. It  makes  a  new  Government — it 
proposes  new  and  extraordinary  terms  of 
union.  The  old  Government  is  as  com- 
pletely abolished  as  if  the  people  of  the 
United  States  had  met  in  Convention  and 
repealed  the  Constitution.  It  is  frivolous 
to  tell  us  that  the  change  has  been  made 
through  the  forms  of  the  Constitution. 
This  is  to  add  insult  to  injury.  What 
signify  forms,  when  the  substance  is  gone  ? 
Of  what  value  is  the  shell,  when  the  ker- 
nel is  extracted  ?  Rights  are  things,  and 
not  words  ;  and  when  the  things  are 
taken  from  us,  it  is  no  time  to  be  nibbling 
at  phrases.  If  a  witness  under  oath  de- 
signedly gives  testimony,  which,  though 
literally  true,  conveys  a  false  impression, 
is  he  not  guilty  of  perjury?  Is  not  his 
truth  a  lie  ?  Temurcs  kept  the  letter  of 
his  promise  to  the  garrison  of  Sebastia, 
that  if  they  would  surrender,  no  blood 
should  be  shed,  but  did  that  save  him  from 
the  scandal  of  treachery  in  burying  them 
alive  ?  No  man  objects  to  the  legality  of 
the  process  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election. 
The  objection  is  to  the  legality  of  that  to 
which  he  is  elected.  He  has  been  chosen, 
not  to  administer,  but  to  revolutionize,  the 
Government.  The  very  moment  he  goes 
into  office,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  as  touching  the  great  question  be- 
tween North  and  South  is  dead.  The 
oath  which  makes  him  President,  makes 
a  new  Union.  The  import  of  secession  is 
simply  the  refusal,  on  the  part  of  the 
South,  to  be  parties  to  any  such  Union. 
She  has  not  renounced,  and  if  it  had  been 
permitted  to  stand,  she  never  would  have 
renounced,  the  Constitution  which  our 
fathers  framed.  She  would  liave  stood  by 
it  for  ever.  But,  as  the  North  have  sub- 
stantially  abolished   it,    and,  taking  ad- 


vantage of  their  numbers,  have  substitu- 
ted another  in  its  place,  which  dooms  the 
South  to  perdition,  surely  she  has  a  right 
to  say  she  will  enter  into  no  such  conspir- 
acy. The  Government  to  which  she  con- 
sented was  a  Government  under  which 
she  might  hope  to  live.  The  new  one 
presented  in  its  place  is  one  under  which 
she  can -only  die.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, ^vc  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  I 
question  cither  the  righteousness  or  the 
necessity  of  secession.  The  South  is  shut 
up  to  the  duty  of  rejecting  these  new 
terms  of  Union.  No  people  on  earth, 
without  judicial  infatuation,  can  organize 
a  Government  to  destroy  them.  It  is  too 
much  to  ask  a  man  to  sign  his  own  death- 
warrant. 

II.  We  wish  to  say  a  few  words  as  to 
the  policy  of  the  slaveholding  States  in 
the  present  emergency. 

We  know  it  to  be  the  fixed  determina- 
tion of  them  all  not  to  acquiesce  in  the 
principles  which  have  brought  .Mr.  Lin- 
coln into  power.  Several  of  them,  how- 
ever, have  hesitated — and  it  is  a  sign  of 
the  scrupulous  integrity  of  the  South  in 
maintaining  her  faith — whether  the  mere 
fact  of  his  election,  apart  frwm  any  overt 
act  of  the  Government,  is  itself  a  casus 
belli,  and  a  sufficient  reason  for  extreme 
measures  of  resistance.  These  States 
have,  also,  clung  to  the  hope  that  there 
would  yet  bo  a  returning  sense  of  justice 
at  the  North,  which  shall  give  them  sat- 
isfactory guarantees  for  the  preservation 
of  their  rights,  and  restore  peace  without 
tlio  necessity  of  schism.  We  respect  the 
motives  which  have  produced  this  hesita- 
tion. We  have  no  sympathy  with  any 
taunting  reflections  upon  the  courage, 
magHanimity,  public  spirit  or  patriotism 
of  such  a  Commonwealth  as"  Virginia, 
Tlie  mother  of  Washington  is  not  to  be 
insulted,  if,  like  her  great  hero,  she  takes 
counsel  of  moderation  and  prudence.    We 


18 


honor  too,  the  sentiment  which  makes  it 
hard  to  give  up  the  Union.  It  was  a  pain- 
ful struggle  to  ourselves  ;  the  most  pain- 
ful struggle  of  our  lives.  There  were 
precious  memories  and  hallowed  associa- 
tions, connected  with  a  glorious  history, 
to  which  the  heart  cannot  bid  farewell 
without  a  pang.  Few  men,  in  all  the 
South,  brought  themselves  to  pronounce 
the  word  Disunion,  without  sadness  of 
heart.  Some  States  have  not  yet  been 
able  to  pronounce  it.  But  the  tendency 
of  events  is  irresistiable.  It  is  becoming 
every  day  clearer,  that  the  people  of  the 
North  hate  slavery  more  than  they  love 
the  Union,  and  they  are  developing  this 
spirit  in  a  form  which  must  soon  bring 
every  slaveholding  State  within  the  ranks 
of  secession.  The  evil  day  may  be  put 
off,  but  it  must  come.  The  counby  must 
be  divided  into  two  people,  and  the  point 
which  we  wish  now  to  press  upon  the 
whole  South  is,  the  importance  of  pre- 
paring, at  once,  for  this  consummation. 

The  slaveholding  interests  is  one,  and 
it  seems  to  us  clear  that  the  slaveholding 
States  ought  speedily  to  be  organized  un- 
der one  general  Government.  United, 
they  are  strong  enough  to  maintain  them- 
selves against  the  world.  They  have  the 
territory,  the  resources,  the  population, 
the  public  spirit,  the  institutions,  which, 
under  a  genial  and  fostering  Constitution, 
would  soon  enable  them  to  become  one  of 
tlie  first  people  upon  the  globe.  And  if 
the  North  shall  have  wisdom  to  see  her 
true  policy,  two  Governments  upon  this 
continent  may  work  out  the  problem  'of 
human  liberty  more  successfully  than  one. 
Let  the  two  people  maintain  the  closest 
alliance  for  defence  against  a  foreign  foe, 
or,  at  least,  let  them  be  agreed  that  no 
European  power  shall  ever  set  foot  on 
American  soil,  and  that  no  type  of  govern- 
ment but  the  republican  shall  ever  be 
tolerated  here,  and  what  is  to  hinder  the 


fullest  and  freest  development  of  our  no- 
ble institutions.  The  separation  changes 
nothing  but  the  external  relations  of  the 
sections.  Such  a  dismemberment  of  the 
Union  is  not  like  the  revolution  of  a  State, 
where  the  internal  system  of  government 
is  subverted,  where  laws  are  suspended, 
and  where  anarchy  reigns.  The  country 
might  divide  into  two  great  nations  to- 
morrow, without  a  jostle  or  a  jar  ;  the 
Government  of  each  State  might  go  on  as 
regularly  as  before,  tlie  law  be  as  supreme, 
and  order  as  perfect,  if  the  passions 
of  the  people  could  be  kept  from  getting 
the  better  of  their  judgments.  It  is  a 
great  advantage  in  the  form  of  our  Con- 
federacy, that  a  radical  revolution  can 
take  place  without  confusion,  and  with- 
out anarchy.  Every  State  has  a  perfect 
internal  system  at  work  already,  and  that 
undergoes  no  change,  except  in  adjusting 
it  to  its  altered  external  relations.  Now, 
given  this  system  of  States,  with  every 
element  of  a  perfect  Government  in  full 
and  undisturbed  operation,  what  is  there 
in  the  circumstances  of  one  Confederacy 
of  divided  interests,  that  shall  secure  a 
freer  and  safer  development  than  two  Con- 
federacies, each  representing  an  undivided 
interest?  Are  not  two  homogeneous 
Unions  stronger  than  one  that  is  hetero- 
geneous ?  Should  not  the  life  of  a  Govern- 
ment be  one  ?  We  do  not  see,  therefore, 
that  anything  will  be  lost  to  freedom  by 
the  union  of  the  South  under  a  separate 
Government.  She  will  carry  into  it  every 
institution  that  she  had  before — her  State 
Constitutions,  her  Legislatures,  her  Courts 
of  Justice,  her  halls  of  learning — every 
thing  that  she  now  possesses.  She  will 
put  these  precious  interests  under  a 
Government  embodying  every  principle 
which  gave  value  to  the  old  one,  and  am- 
ply adequate  to  protect  them.  What  will 
bhe  lose  of  real  freedom  ?  We  confess 
that  we  cannot  understand  the  declama- 


14 


tion,  that  with  the  American  Union,  Ameri- 
can institutions  are  gone.  Each  section 
of  the  Union  will  jireservc  them  and  cher- 
ish them.  Every  principle  that  has  ever 
made  us  glorious,  and  made  our  Govern- 
ment a  wonder,  will  abide  with  us.  The 
sections,  separately,  will '  not  be  as  for- 
midable to  foreign  ])0wer8  as  before. 
That  is  all.  But  each  section  will  bo 
strong  enough  to  protect  itself,  and  both 
together  can  save  this  continent  for  re- 
publicanism for  ever. 

Indeed,  it  is  likely  that  both  Govern- 
ments will  be  purer,  in  consequence  of 
their  mutual  rivalry,  and  the  diminution 
of  the  extent  of  tlicir  patronage.  They 
will  both  cherish  intensely  the  American 
feeling,  both  maintain  the  pride  of  Ameri- 
can character,  and  both  try  to  make  their 
Governments  at  home  what  they  would 
desire  to  have  them  appear  to  be  abroad. 

Once  take  away  all  pretext  for  med- 
dling with  one  another's  peculiar  inter 
csts,  and  we  do  not  see  but  that  the 
magnificent  visions  of  glory,  which  our 
imaginations  have  delighted  to  picture  as 
the  destiny  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  on 
this  North  American  continent,  may  yet 
be  fully  realized.  They  can  never  be,  if 
we  continue  together,  to  bite  and  devour 
one  another. 

But,  whether  it  be  for  weal  or  woe,  the 
South  has  no  election.  She  is  driven  to 
the  wall,  and  the  only  question  is,  will 
she  take  care  of  herself  in  time  ?  The 
sooner  she  can  organize  a  general  Gov- 
ernment, the  better.  That  will  be  a  centre 
of  unity,  and,  once  com) lined,  we  are  safe. 

We  can  not  close  without  saying  a  few 
words  to  the  people  of  the  North  as  to 
the  })olicy  which  it  becomes  them  to  pur- 
sue. The  whole  question  of  peace  or  war 
is  in  their  hands.  The  South  is  simply 
standing  on  the  defensive,  and  has  no 
notion  of  abandoning  that  attitude.  Let 
the  Northern  people,  then,  seriously  con- 
sider,   and   consider  in  the  fear  of  God 


how,  under  present  circumstances,  they 
can  best  conserve  those  great  interests  of 
freedom,  of  religion,  and  of  order,  which 
are  equally  dear  to  us  both,  and  which 
they  can  fearfully  jeopard.  If  their  coun- 
sels incline  to  peace,  the  most  friendly  re- 
lations can  speedily  be  restored,  and  the 
most  favorable  treaties  entered  into.  We 
should  feel  ourselves  the  joint  possessors 
of  the  continent,  and  should  be  drawn 
together  by  ties  which  unite  no  other 
people.  We  could,  indeed,  realize  all  the 
advantages  of  the  Union,  without  any  of 
its  inconveniences.  The  cause  of  human 
liberty  would  not  even  be  retarded,  if  the 
North  can  rise  to  a  level  with  the  exigen- 
ces of  the  occasion.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  their  thoughts  incline  to  war,  we 
solemnly  ask  them  what  they  expect  to 
gain?  What  interest  will  be  promoted  ? 
What  end,  worthy  of  a  great  people,  will 
they  be  able  to  secure  ?  They  may 
gratify  their  bad  passions,  they  may  try 
to  reek  their  resentment  upon  the  seced- 
ing States,  and  they  may  inflict  a  large 
amount  of  injury,  disaster  and  suffering. 
But  what  have  they  gained?  Shall  a  free 
people  be  governed  b}'  their  passions  ? 
Suppose  they  should  conquer  us,  what 
will  they  do  with  us  ?  How  will  they 
hold  us  in  subjection?  How  many  gar- 
risons, and  how  many  men,  and  how  much 
treasure,  will  it  take  to  keep  the  South 
in  order  as  a  conquered  province  ?  and 
\\hcre  are  these  resources  to  come  from  ? 
After  they  have  subdued  us,  the  hardest 
part  of  their  task  will  remain.  They  will 
have  the  wolf  by  the  ears. 

But,  upon  what  grounds  do  they  hope 
to  conquer  us?  They  know  us  well — 
they  know  our  numbers — they  know  our 
spirit,  and  they  know  the  value  which  we 
set  upon  our  homes  and  firesides.  We 
have  fought  for  the  glory  of  the  Union, 
and  the  world  admired  us,  but  it  was  not 
such   fighting   as   we    shall   do   for   our 


15 


wives,  our  children,  and  our  sacred 
honor.  The  very  women  of  the  South, 
like  the  Spartan  matrons,  will  take  hold 
of  shield  and  buckler,  and  our  boys  at 
school  will  go  to  the  field  in  all  the  de- 
termination of  disciplined  valor.  Con- 
quered we  can  never  be.  It  would  be 
madness  to  attempt  it ;  and  after  years 
of  blood  and  slaughter,  the  parties  would 
be  just  where  they  began,  except  that 
they  would  have  learned  to  hate  one 
another  with  an  intensity  of  hatred 
equaled  only  in  hell.  Freedom  would 
suffer,  religion  would  suffer,  learning 
would  suffer,  every  human  interest  would 
suffer,  from  such  a  war.  But  upon  whose 
head  would  fall  the  responsibility?  There 
can  be  but  one  answer.  We  solemnly 
believe  that  the  South  will  be  guiltless 
before  the  eyes  of  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth.  She  has  stood  in  her  lot,  and  re- 
sisted aggression. 

If  the  North  could  rise  to  the  dignity 
of  their  present  calling,  this  country 
would  present  to  the  world  a  spectacle 
of  unparalleled  grandeur.  It  would  show 
how  deeply  the  love  of  liberty  and  the 
influence  of  religion  are  rooted  in  our 
people,  when  a  great  empire  can  be 
divided  without  confusion,  war,  or  dis- 
order. Two  great  people  united  under 
one  government  differ  upon  a  question  of 
vital  importance  to  one.  Neither  can 
conscientiously  give  way.  In  the  mag- 
nanimity of  their  souls,  they  say,  let 
there  be  no  strife  between  us,  for  we  are 
brethren.  The  landi  is  broad  enough  for 
us  both.  Let  us  part  in  peace,  let  us 
divide  our  common  inheritance,  adjust 
our  common  obligations,  and,  preserving, 


as  a  sacred  treasure,  our  common  prin- 
ciples, let  each  set  up  for  himself,  and  let 
the  Lord  bless  us  both.  A  course  like 
this,  heroic,  sublime,  glorious,  would  be 
something  altogether  imexampled  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  It  would  be  the 
wonder  and  astonishment  of  the  nations. 
It  would  do  more  to  command  for  Ameri- 
can institutions  the  homage  and  respect 
of  mankind,  than  all  the  armies  and  fleets 
of  the  Republic.  It  would  be  a  victory 
more  august  and  imposing  than  any 
which  can  be  achieved  by  the  thunder  of 
cannon  and  the  shock  of  battle. 

Peace  is  the  policy  of  both  North  and 
South.  Let  peace  prevail^  and  nothing 
really  valuable  is  lost.  To  save  the 
Union  is  impossible.  The  thing  for 
Christian  men  and  patriots  to  aim  at  now, 
is  to  save  the  country  from  war.  That 
will  be  a  scourge  and  a  curse.  But  the 
South  will  emerge  from  it  free  as  she 
was  before.  She  is  the  invaded  party, 
and  her  institutions  are  likely  to  gain 
strength  from  the  conflict.  Can  the  North, 
as  the  invading  party,  be  assured  that 
she  will  not  fall  into  the  hands  of  a 
military  despot  ?  The  whole  question  is 
with  her,  and  we  calmly  await  her  de- 
cision. We  prefer  peace — but  if  war 
must  come,  we  are  prepared  to  meet  it 
with  unshaken  confidence  in  the  God  of 
battles.  We  lament  the  wide-spread 
mischief  it  will  do,  the  arrest  it  will  put 
upon  every  holy  enterprise  of  the  Church, 
and  upon  all  the  interests  of  life;  but  the 
South  can  boldly  say  to  the  bleeding, 
distracted  country, 

"  Shake  not  thy  gory  locks  at  me ; 
Thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it." 


I 


